Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe, but then why have 40k and whfb tournaments been so popular the past twenty years when list building has had such a footprint in the game that skill is almost seen as secondary; if you aren't fielding one of the big lists your chance at victory becomes smaller.

auticus wrote:
Maybe, but then why have 40k and whfb tournaments been so popular the past twenty years when list building has had such a footprint in the game that skill is almost seen as secondary; if you aren't fielding one of the big lists your chance at victory becomes smaller.

Because for the longest time, they were really the only games being played. When I started back in third, essentially, my 'alternative' to 40k was warhammer fantasy, both of which were broken games. even now, with the large number of successful games in the last five years built with balance in mind, 40k keeps going because of the legacy effects, and network effects (you play 40k becaus your friends play, or you already have 40k armies), even though both are somewhat diminished from even five years ago.

It's not about wanting to play a broken game. It's about that broken game being all that was on offer. And under the circumstances, when your only choices are play a broken game, or don't play, is it any wonder people played what was essentially the only game in town? Choices were rather limited. The internet wasn't what it was, and knowledge or the ability to network and build a community of those smaller games was so much harder. Now all you need to do is join a Facebook group.

I don't think AoS is intended to be a 'desperately serious' kind of game. Fans certainly see it as a game in which the point is to enjoy taking part rather than specifically to win.

It's got a rough balance inherently, as most units are fairly similar in stats if taken in the basic format. For example 10 Skinks have 10 wounds and 10 shots, which compensates for having lower To Hit and To Save than a unit of 6 Sigmarines with 6 wounds and 6 H2H attacks.

I don't really see why people would want to play AoS as a tournament game.

GW of course see it as a way to promote books and kits.

 Haechi wrote:
Then AoS is a very good competitive game cause not only that one was hilarious and fun, but it was also very close and epic.

It absolutely works for a competitive game when, assuming your players aren't all familiar w/each other then use a comp or make a comp/guidelines for your event to use. I don't see the point in arguing about the AoS out-of-the-box level of competitive play, or really how to fight a battle at all. Though they really should have done this from the start instead if waiting a month for so much sand to get in *BEEEEEEEEP!* and now the community online or in-person is pretty good about making sure new players use scenarios and if they want a competitive guide to use one of the existing comps. I, too, wondered if AoS would be able to work as a game at tournaments and with Clash Comp at least is worked soooo surprisingly well. Even rules debates we've had at any of our gaming clubs dispute a rule we don't use anyway, like measuring from the the model--we know to measure from the base. Or cap summoning, or doing away with sudden death victory conditions.

Yeah, if you go beyond your close gaming group and need to control for the unknown then no need to stick to the rule pamphlet. Personally, I don't debate it and neither do any of our AoS group because we agree so much of it just doesn't work so we accept, move on and play with a set of guidelines so we can enjoy playing.

Addition: In the US at least many of the GW stores (at least on both coasts because I can't say for sure about the rest) act often as "babysitters" for after school or weekends. For lack of a better word I say this, as well as humor between myself, groups and store managers (these are all now one-man stores I speak of). My final GW in Maryland was an affluent area (not me!) but even in less-so areas it happens a lot. Parents would pick up the kids (all under 16 usually) in the evening and buy something on a pretty regular basis. This happens waaaaaay too much on the weekends when mom or dad can dump Junior on the GW store and show up later. So, it's less of an allowance system and more a feeling of obligation to buy stuff now-and-then to keep the store and kid happy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I don't really see why people would want to play AoS as a tournament game.

Because it's the direct replacement for GW's serious tournament game. It's totally not suited to it, but that's what it is.

Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.

People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.

GW's managed to create a mindset in it's fans where only GW is real wargaming. I can't explain how they managed it but I've seen it firsthand*. It's a work of marketing genius.

AoS is a pretty good example - people defend it because it's got a GW logo on, and slate Kings Of War because it doesn't.

*One of my gaming friends still regards everything non-GW as inferior/rip off products. He sold his WHFB army and didn't even look at AoS because of the cost.

I think a lot fo GW fans were introduced to wargames by GW games and haven't played anything else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.

People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.

Off the top of my head because we have the models, an established gaming group (from local to international for events and online communities ) and yes, part of that's what we are used to so willing to try.

I don't like AOS because its from GW. I like AOS because I like the visuals and the game is something that I can live with. Granted I'm not a pick up gamer or a tournament player.

I don't like Kings of War, not because its not GW, but because the models are mostly IMO bad and because the game itself is rather boring and static (again IMO). I have the books for KOW, and gave it a try several times and I can't get into it. It reminds me of everything I didn't like about 7th edition WHFB, which was an edition I quit for a few year.s

Herzlos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I don't really see why people would want to play AoS as a tournament game.

Because it's the direct replacement for GW's serious tournament game. It's totally not suited to it, but that's what it is.

When was WFB ever marketed and produced as GWs "serious tournament game"?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

When was WFB ever marketed and produced as GWs "serious tournament game"?

It's certainly been viewed that way by staffers and longbeards for the best part of 20 years, but it was probably never *marketed* as such, no. Had GW any finger near any pulse, they would have picked up on that. It's a big mistake to assume that customers use your product for what you intended them to use it for.

It was never a tournament game. Neither 40k or fantasy was ever designed to be played in a tournament. Tournaments were always just a way to promote the hobby and show off well painted armies in White Dwarf to encourage people to pay/paint.

Honestly the best decision GW has made is to say "the hell with this" and stop trying to balance a game they clearly are incompetent at.

Herzlos wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

When was WFB ever marketed and produced as GWs "serious tournament game"?

It's certainly been viewed that way by staffers and longbeards for the best part of 20 years, but it was probably never *marketed* as such, no. Had GW any finger near any pulse, they would have picked up on that. It's a big mistake to assume that customers use your product for what you intended them to use it for.

So why are claims being made that it was GW's "serious tournament game", other then that's what people wanted to believe, butp probably wasn't true?

It was never marketed as such but the community at large turned it into one. The community at large is what demands the serious tournament game, and is why the split occurred and why there is so much bitter rage still burning eight months later.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

So why are claims being made that it was GW's "serious tournament game", other then that's what people wanted to believe, butp probably wasn't true?

Because it was, in all but GW officially stating it as such. They even ran hardcore tournaments for it in WHW (I've forgotten the name).

Just because GW didn't call it a serious tournament game doesn't mean that's not what it was.

auticus wrote:
It was never marketed as such but the community at large turned it into one. The community at large is what demands the serious tournament game, and is why the split occurred and why there is so much bitter rage still burning eight months later.

Well "the tournament community" perhaps, not the community at large. Tournaments are a subdivision of the whole.

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.

People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.

Off the top of my head because we have the models, an established gaming group (from local to international for events and online communities ) and yes, part of that's what we are used to so willing to try.

You don't have to use GW figures only with GW rules. I should try HOTT, Dragon Rampant or Kings of War instead, or just carry on with WHFB 8th edition.

AoS isn't WHFB. It's absolutely fair to criticise it for unambitious design, clunky mechanics and so on, but to criticise it for not being WHFB is bordering on the irrational.

I agree. However... I'm finding that the tournament community seems to be parallel with the pick up game community. They seem to tie in very closely as they both tend to want to use the same rules and the same style of game, and I'm finding over the months that these two subsets combined seem at least to make up the vast bulk of what one finds in public.

Practice games, maybe? I dunno.

A lot of people that play pick-up games (those with time/space commitments or few gaming friends) are likely to go to tournaments for the same reason; to get a few games in at once.

There's always an assumption that people attending tournaments are there just to win, but in my experience at least half of them are just there for a days gaming with new opponents. That's the reason I go to them.

Yeah thats not a good assumption to make (that tournament players are there just to win). The thing with pick up gamers and tournament gamers (i tend to lump them together as their wants are typically very similar) is that they require a game that has a universal ruleset that is the same no matter where they go, and this is where lack of points is really the burner because having to negotiate is annoying to a lot of those people who are looking to just show up and play.

This is why player comp packs are treated with disdain unless that pack happens to be universally accepted (so things like the ITC in 40k are ok because a lot of events use that so its semi-"official")

Herzlos wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

So why are claims being made that it was GW's "serious tournament game", other then that's what people wanted to believe, butp probably wasn't true?

Because it was, in all but GW officially stating it as such. They even ran hardcore tournaments for it in WHW (I've forgotten the name).

Just because GW didn't call it a serious tournament game doesn't mean that's not what it was.

So?

That Doesn't mean it was one, either. Gw ran, and run a lot of different events. Some were tournaments. Picking one of those types of events and saying it defines the whole identity of the game is being dishonest, especially when tournaments aren't all that gw run.

When 40k and wfb were the only games in town, it stands to reason that people will try and run tournaments with them. Which is fine. But it's a completely different thing to try and state that they were tournament-focused games. That claim is laughable. 40k, and fantasy have, and have had no end of imbalance. Games like warmachine, with privateer press' steamroller format, and infinity, with Corvus belli's itc have far better claims to be tournament games. Wfb? Nothing more than elitist snobbery at the heart of it I'm afraid. That game was terrible for tournaments. Some players might have wanted it to be a tournament focused game, but what players want and what gw produced are often two completely separate things.

WRG Ancients specifically was written for running tournaments, and for decades was the go to game for any Ancient/Mediaeval mass battle you might have wanted to play., tournament, friendly, casual or simulation.

WHFB was not written specifically for tournaments, but GW gave it the same kind of points system and army lists as WRG uses, and then ran a lot of tournaments over several decades with the rules.

Therefore it can be said that WHFB was and was not a tournament game. But what does it matter? AoS is the topic of the thread, and AoS is meant as an intro level skirmish game, not for tournaments at all.

I quite like having multiple points systems for AoS now that it is handed over to fans. Oddly, because my PUG are in a GW I play PUGs with no points, and games at home with points.

I think a light ruleset is great, especially for new blood - I do think the lack of an official balancing mechanic could be dangerous for GW gaining new players simply because lots of hobbyist are born out of two brothers playing each other - which is like an El Classico every game!

I know when I was 10 years old we often did just play 2nd edition 40k with whatever we had - but we always aspired to having points games, and as we got older (through 3rd edition) that became a reality with super competitive games at 1500 points taking up our Sunday afternoons.

What I'm saying is, GW need to get the experience just right for young brothers starting the hobby together - otherwise not only will there be punch ups, but the experience might sour them from continuing with the hobby.

Although this is all speculation on my part, or from my own experiences. I have no idea what sort of experience two 10 year old brothers would with AoS and its lack of points. Would they not care, or would it take away the fun for them?

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Therefore it can be said that WHFB was and was not a tournament game. But what does it matter? AoS is the topic of the thread, and AoS is meant as an intro level skirmish game, not for tournaments at all.

That hasn't prevented people from running or planning tournaments with it, same as WFB.

Just my 2 cents.
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.

AoS has no official point system, and that's what makes it great compared to 40k.
Too many times i wanted to buy/play some list/model only to be forced to aknowledge that i would just spend the game removing my models from the table. I play tyrannids, so 90% of my codex isn't "competitive".
In AoS if i like a model then i can play that model. AoS wins.
As demonstrated by SCGT the game is well balanced and playable in a tournament setting. All that was needed by GW was not forcing theyr balancing on us, they have stated multiple times that they are not a gaming company. Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at.
Having a balancing actor that is indipendent from the commercial interests of the game is a really good thing. No chances of power creep.

I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.

Spoletta wrote:
Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..

I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.

 Haechi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..

I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.

if they had done that, I could have stuck with AoS despite its rules. Old World with new rules and new concepts of play while not flushing an IP that still generates revenue ( video games, card games, rpgs, etc..from FFG)

Spoletta wrote:
Just my 2 cents.
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.

AoS has no official point system, and that's what makes it great compared to 40k.
Too many times i wanted to buy/play some list/model only to be forced to aknowledge that i would just spend the game removing my models from the table. I play tyrannids, so 90% of my codex isn't "competitive".
In AoS if i like a model then i can play that model. AoS wins.
As demonstrated by SCGT the game is well balanced and playable in a tournament setting. All that was needed by GW was not forcing theyr balancing on us, they have stated multiple times that they are not a gaming company. Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at.
Having a balancing actor that is indipendent from the commercial interests of the game is a really good thing. No chances of power creep.

I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.

/agree1000%